Slashdot Mirror
Should Smartphones Be Allowed In Court?
coondoggie writes "Federal courts have been debating how much freedom users of smartphones and portable wireless devices in general should have in a federal courthouse. Some say they should be banned outright, while others say they should be allowed, but their use curtailed (PDF). Unregulated use of smartphones has resulted in mistrials, exclusion of jurors and fines in some case."
50% of the time jurors are just forced to sit there while nothing is happening. They're not allowed to do much, so why not let them play Angry Birds?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
No different then cameras or other recording devices in most courts.
Leave them at the door.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Many courts ban cameras, so this automatically excludes smartphones with cameras.
Ban the thing and surround the whole stage with a strong Faraday cage and install repeater for doctor pager. The court is supposed be a spectacle that stands out of time. It is not something of the common man, it should be grand, imposing and restrictive to ensure a certain level of deference.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
...for and against before I provide my opinion.
in my local courthouse for several years, due to fear of courtroom observers using texting to coordinate witness testimony. That decision was made when the clerk of court's teenage son showed him that he could text with his phone in his shirt pocket.
Post signs on the entrances to the court room. "Turn all cell phones off now." "Offenders will be subject to the following penalties" 1st offense - phone will be confiscated for 30 days. 2nd offense - Phone will be confiscated for 60 days and passed among inmates for free use. 3rd offense - Immediate execution by Bailiff.
It's the behavior that's wrong, not the technology. You can ban smartphones, but then you'll be banning tablets, then watches, then glasses with microdisplays, etc.
Treat the problem, not the symptom.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't the status quo currently that judges decide whether to allow them or not? Why not let them continue to do so? If you're going to ban them outright, then why? And what possible justification is there for not banning notepads and pens and other recording devices?
... controls my pacemaker, you insensitive clod!
Stop letting judges restrict the information and arguments to which jurors are exposed.
Are laptop computers banned? Desktops? Internet? Logically extend.
If your intention is to deliberately keep jurors ignorant, then yes, jurors should be banned from using smart phones while sequestered. If your intention is to keep spectators from leaking information about the trial, that ship sailed a long time ago... the technology to undetectably get pictures and audio recordings of testimony out of the courtroom has been around for a while.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I have a friend who practiced in the U.S. District Court in Mass. Early on he had a Windows Mobile phone, which of course he kept his schedule. When the Court was banning cell phones, he would have to get permission from the court so that he could check his schedule on his phone, as did opposing counsel.
In Los Angeles, they would ban cell phones with cameras for a while, for non-attorneys. This was stopped between 2008 and 2010. I suspect that since most people have their schedules on their phones, it would make it very hard to schedule any proceedings if phones were banned.
As far as jurors, there must be some restriction on information access/communications during the period that they are on a jury (as opposed to being in the pool). Not only so that they are untainted, but also so they are undistracted.
Camera Phones don't take pictures, people take pictures.
Fight Spammers!
Of course, what we get in the US is a predominance of both of these sorts of jurors. They watch a lot of TV and are sure they have stumbled into something interesting. Or they are there because there isn't anything else interesting to do at the rest home. Worse, they didn't want to serve, couldn't think of a way out of it and now are there and are very, very hostile about it - he must be guilty or he wouldn't have been arrested, can we go now?
The smartphone is of use to both these sorts of people and in neither case is it useful or helpful but is actually very, very damaging to the system. And if you happen to be the guy on trial with 10 of these sorts of jurors you are going to be very angry at the guilty verdict.
There is a case where a judge declared a mistrial because one of the lawyers used a big $2 word that few average people would understand. They wouldn't define/explain the word to the jury, nor even let them look in a dictionary, so one of them used his phone to check an online dictionary. That's the whole reason the judge declared a mistrial.
I think that judge in particular needs to get whacked with a clue-by-four.
In my opinion there does need to be some standard rules regarding the use of these devices, but completely banning them is not a good choice. Even so, a single stupid or technophobic judge will screw over anything no matter what.
I practice before the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria, and they do not allow anyone, including lawyers, to bring their smartphones in. It's routine to have to look at your calendar on the fly when the judge wants to schedule something, so you have to have it with you. The EDVA policy is the main reason I still maintain a paper calendar parallel to my computer calendar.
I understand and buy into the rationale behind not letting jurors bring them in, but the state courts in the area almost universally allow lawyers to bring their smartphones in, and it's such a bonus.
Tell you what- when I'm allowed to bring my smartphone in for my SAT, then we'll talk about letting the jury have them.
Sent from my CR-48
Why not allow them to have their mobile devices, but jam cell frequencies so they can't be 'contaminated' ?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
I can turn 100 million greens into cheap bio-diesel through thermal de-polymerization. We rid the world of Luddites and we get to drive cool cars!.
Last time I was on Jury duty, I was told no cell phones. Apparently gangs were using the cameras to photo and intimidate witnesses.
Don't ban them! I have my murder trial coming up, and I already have it set up for the App Store to offer Angry Birds for free on the day the prosecution makes their case.
It's the stupid people who are using the smart phones.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
if they do that then end up playing don't drop the soap.
I don't want to spoil the usual misinformed ranting with a bunch of facts, but I just finished jury duty, and this is how it works: The sherrif collects everybody's cell phones and locks them up in a little foam lined briefcase at the start of court every day. You get them back for lunch break and when you leave for the day. Once we were sequestered there were no phones, period, till we reached a verdict.
Nah, they are sequestered on an hotel floor and they are allowed to visit female jurors in other rooms to exchange on the trial or other matters...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
http://s.dealextreme.com/search/cellphone+blocker
Just block the bastards.
I think the system we have here in Australia works well (no idea how it works in the US). Phones allowed in the courthouse, but not in the courtroom. When I was on a jury a couple of years ago, we had to put our phones in a box before going on to the jury. Once we left the courtroom, we could pick up our phones and use them like normal. Not even from the smartphone side, but a jury shouldn't have any distractions like that while listening to a trial.
Considering the FACT that the legal system is peopled by corrupt (stupid) assholes I would suggest that courts themselves should not be allowed. Ever encountered one of these tools? I rest my case.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Allowing idiots who serve on juries any access that may sway their judgement is just wrong.
I have served on juries and would not anyone to get their judgement colored in any way, the
stupidity of the prosecutors is more than enough retardedness.
Swarovski Crystal Jewelry are famous for their exquisite workmanship and graceful shape .For satisfing more customers our Swarovski outlet has recently launched onlinewelcome to our Swarovski outlet store.http://www.swarovski-outlet.com
Granted, I have only been in a real courtroom twice (as an interpreter), but both times, they didn't let me bring ANY kind of phone.
(This was in Philadelphia, USA)
they obviously can't that let happen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BRsKmxKJE0&feature=related
You obviously haven't been a prisoner then - have you? I have! I spent 2 weeks going through a trial where there was not a single piece of evidence offered against me, other than one person's word again mine. At the end of that two weeks I was found guilty of a crime I didn't commit and got to spend the next 6 years, 8 months in prison because our legal system sucks.
Do you want to know how much time I spent during that period thinking about how sorry I felt for the jurors and how much they must have suffered like I was during their 2 weeks of jury service?
Do you? Really? Precisely zero seconds!!
How the hell did the parent comment get modded up, let alone as "insightful"? Unless it was modded as "Insightful into the mental state of the poster"?
You pass laws that restrict or ban their use and then you actually enforce them. People are growing up in a world where laws are treated as suggestions without consequence. Apply actual consequence for actions, instead of pandering to people's sensitive self-esteem.
Now get off my lawn!
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
The problem is with banning: It approaches from the wrong direction. The law should state explicitly what is permitted, not what is not permitted. If it's not on the permitted list, then the juror can't bring it into court. Simple as that. And to handle exceptions, they get reviewed, and then the permitted list is revised as needed.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
If smartphones were prohibited in court, then wouldn't that make it harder to convict somebody of stealing smartphones, due to the lack of evidence the prosecution could present?